Woman Forged Ex-Husband's Signature to Get IVF Treatments, Now Demands Child Support

By: Mackenzie Wright | May 18, 2015

A German man never intended for his ex-wife to have his children once they were divorced, but thanks to the miracle of modern science, and a little forgery, she was able to conceive without his help.

The woman had fertility treatments, twice, forging her ex-husband's signature. Now, she has won a battle in court and the man has been ordered to pay child support.

The man, known only as Karl, was married to the woman, known as Inge, for several years. For privacy reasons, German courts do not release the surnames of individuals involved in legal battles.

About five years ago, when still married, Karl and Inge had her eggs fertilized with his sperm and had the eggs frozen at a local clinic. They had hoped to have children later in life, but the marriage ended in divorce.

Inge, now 42 years old, decided after the divorce that she wanted a baby. She went to the fertility clinic and had the eggs she and Karl had preserved implanted in her womb.

She had the IVF treatments twice, and both times she forged her ex-husband's signature. Karl never consented for the eggs to be used after the divorce.

A baby was the result of the IVF treatment, and now Inge took Karl to court, demanding child support from the 37-year-old father.

Karl argued that he did not want the child, and that after he and his wife split up, he revoked his permission that would let her use the fertilized eggs. Because he is the biological father, a regional court in Munich disagreed.

They ordered the man to pay support, even if he did not consent to the procedures that produced the child.

Karl argued that the clinic that gave his wife the IVF treatments without checking with him should be forced to pay financial support for the child. The court ruled, however, that the clinic had no reason to believe the signatures were forged.

Furthermore, they felt that when Karl called them after the marriage had ended to revoke his consent for use of the fertilized eggs, he was not clear enough.

A growing movement in Western nations question whether men should be forced to support children that they never wanted in the first place. The idea sprang up in 1998, when Brown University sociology professor Frances K. Goldscheider proposed that in the early stages of pregnancy, a man should be able to opt for a 'financial abortion'.

This would effectively eliminate any and all responsibilities and privileges when it comes to the child in question.

Even some modern feminists, who staunchly argue that it's a woman's right to choose whether to have a baby or not is hers alone, are starting to embrace that men should also have a right to choose whether or not to be a parent. Men, as the argument goes, should also have reproductive autonomy.

At this time, no country in the world gives men any kind of out of being responsible for unwanted children. The choice to have the child, if given at all, is given to the woman.

Karl's case is unusual in that he is being bound by these same laws, even though he withdrew consent for his sperm to be involved before the child was even conceived.

Because the decision was made by the court's malpractice section, it's not legally binding. At this point, Karl has not indicated whether or not he plans to appeal the ruling.